Insurance doesn’t have “appetite” for consumer protection

by Christopher Elliott on November 16, 2011

Thinking of a career in consumer advocacy?

You might want to think again.

This is a true story of my efforts to get insurance that would protect me against litigious business owners. (Hey, it’s happened before.)

Just before my last insurance policy expired, I realized I couldn’t simply renew. I have a new book coming out about scams, and many of my media outlets changed. My insurance agent asked me to apply online with a company called AXIS Express Solutions.

I filled out the form, fully disclosing my outlets and activities.

Here’s the response I received:

Thank you for submitting the Book Author, Freelance Writing and Blogging insurance application through the AXIS Express Solutions portal.

Unfortunately, your submission does not qualify for the WriteInsure program and coverage will not be offered.

We don’t have an underwriting appetite for writing activities that focus on investigative/expose or consumer complaints. We also don’t offer coverage if there have been any claims or lawsuits related to writing activities.

I’m sorry we couldn’t help you with this WriteInsure submission.

How interesting.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a safe bet. Chances are pretty good that someone, somewhere down the line will try to sue me again. They will not prevail, but the resulting SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation) will cost me time and money.

I can certainly understand an underwriter’s reluctance to write a policy.

At the same time, isn’t that what insurance is for — to protect a journalist and consumer advocate from frivolous lawsuits? Is WriteInsure for birdwatchers or mombloggers who only write about “safe” topics?

I’m disappointed by the rejection but not surprised. I’m afraid consumer advocacy is a high-risk profession, and all but uninsurable.

I guess I’ll have to take my chances out there.

(Photo: Breath taking Photo/Flickr)

Tagged as: Application, Blog, Insurance, Rejected

  • http://entreprelife.com Alex Humphrey

    Don’t have an appetite? That’s a pretty lousy way to say it. You’d think they’d at least doll it up a bit. lol

  • Joe Farrell

    Now you know why SLAPP suits are so effective . . .

  • texan

    I agree that the wording is… well.. poor.. That’s what they may be thinking, but I wouldn’t say that… but as far as the denial of coverage, I do think that in the end they are, like most insurers, not in a public service capacity, but a for-profit, and as such seek to underwrite those cases where they believe they have the best ability to collect premiums in excess of net claims (less investment income on said premiums)

    So, to that end, as Chris admits, rightly or wrongly he’s a litigation target.. and to that end, I fully understand and would expect fewer carriers willing to write me and any who did would quote premiums in keeping with the expected higher claims costs..

    As to the notion of “isn’t that what it’s for?” goes.. I’d totally agree.. but I’d also temper that with the economic reality that not every carrier wants to or is willing to accept that level of underwriting risk… and therefore a free market (to the extent that state level insurance commissioners regulate) decision for each carrier to make..

    You work in a higher litigation risk profession you’re going to find less takers and who is a taker will charge more.. I see nothing wrong with that at all.

  • Andrew, NYC

    I’ve been reading Chris’s blog for quite a while.  I didn’t see too many “expose” pieces.  Maybe the “Imagine That Vacation” qualifies.  However, Chris never directly calls a company a “scam” — he just asks his readers’ opinion.

    So.  “Expose”?  “Investigative”?  This is just a travel blog, teaching readers about common pitfalls of travel, with examples of what’s “out there” and what to avoid.  I’m sure if Chris carefully rewrites his insurance application, he’ll be accepted.

Previous post:

Next post: